rebuked the devil (demon), and he departed out of him" (Matt. xvii. 22).

From this the identity of lunacy with supposed diabolical possession is apparent. The expulsion of the malarious influence which deranged the child's faculties was the casting out of the demon.

"Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil blind and dumb; and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw" (Matt. xii. 22).

"And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit" (Mark ix. 17).

There is no case of demoniacal possession mentioned in the New Testament, which has not its parallel in hundreds of instances in the medical experience of the present time. The symptoms are precisely identical-tearing, foaming at the mouth, crying out, abnormal strength, &c. True, there are no exclamations about the Messiah, because there is no popular excitement on the subject for them to reflect in an aberrated form, as there was in the days of Jesus, when the whole Jewish community was pervaded by an intense expectation of the Messiah, and agitated by the wonderful works of Christ. The transference of "the devils' to the swine, is only an instance in which Christ vindicated the law (which prohibited the culture of the pig), by acting on the suggestion of a madman in transferring an aberrating influence from the latter to the swine, and causing their destruction. The statement that the devils made request, or the devils cried out this or that, must be interpreted in the light of a self-evident fact, that it was the person possessed who spoke, and not the abstract derangement. The insane utterances were attributable to the insanifying influence, and,

therefore, it is an allowable liberty of speech to say that the influence -called in the popular phrase of these times, demon or demonsspoke them; but, in judging of the theory of possession, we must carefully separate between critical statements of truth and rough popular forms of speech, which merely embody an aspect, and not the essence of truth.

to

a man

It is needless to say more on the subject: enough has been advanced to show the unfounded and mischievous nature of popular views, and to furnish a key for the solution of all Scripture texts which appear favour those views. This accomplishment, if successfully achieved, will suffice for the present effort. The doctrine of a personal devil, or devils, is a spiritual miasma; it is itself an evil spirit, of which must become dispossessed before he can become mentally clothed, and in his right mind. It obscures the shining features of divine truth from the gaze of all who are subject to it. It throws a cloud, as from a smoking pit, over the face of heaven's great luminary, obstructing the vision, and causing the mental eyes to smart; and ultimately suffocating to death the wretched people who are embraced in its deadly shroud. It is a feature of the general corruption of doctrine which set in during the very days of the apostles, and has ended in making the word of God utterly without effect. It is companion to the immortality of the soul, which, with other fables of heathen invention, men have universally turned according to Paul's prediction (2 Tim. iv. 3, 4); and, in accepting which they have necessarily rejected the truth proclaimed by all the servants of God, from Enoch to Paul.

to

N no subject will Christendom be found to have gone more astray than on the subject of the Kingdom of God-a subject which, without exaggeration, may be said to constitute the very backbone of the divine purpose with the earth and its inhabitants. What is the Kingdom of God? It is one of the most important questions that can be asked, from a Scriptural point of view for this reason: whatever the Kingdom of God is, IT WAS THE GREAT SUBJECT MATTER GOSPEL PREACHED BY JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES. This we prove by the following citation of testi

monies

OF THE

"And Jesus went about all Galilee teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. iv. 23).

66 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom" (Matt. ix. 35).

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God" (Mark i. 14).

"He (Jesus) said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also; for therefore am I sent" (Luke iv. 43).

"And it came to pass afterwards that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God" (Luke viii. 1).

"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases, and he sent them to preach the kingdom of God" (Luke ix. 1, 2).

"And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida; and the people when they knew it followed him, and he received the people, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God" ke ix. 10, 11).

Not

The ministers and clergy of the present day believe that they preach the gospel in setting before the people the death of Christ. The death of Christ, in its sacrificial import, doubtless became an element in the apostolic testimony of the Gospel; but, in considering whether this was the whole gospel of first century preaching, we must remember that Christ and his disciples preached the gospel three years before the crucifixion. only so, but we have evidence that the apostles, while so engaged while they went throughout the towns, preaching the gospel"(Luke ix. 6), were not aware that Christ had to suffer. Christ frequently told his disciples that he should "suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and be slain, and be raised again the third day " (Luke ix. 22); but it is said, 66 they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them that they perceived it not" (Luke ix. 45). The fact that, while in this state of ignorance concerning the sufferings of Christ, they preached the gospel," is proof of the most positive character that the gospel, as preached by them, must have been something very different from the gospel of modern times, which consists exclusively of the death of Christ on the cross. The difference is manifest in the foregoing testimonies, which tell us they preached "THE KINGDOM OF GOD."

The following passages prove that the Kingdom of God was also

preached by the apostles after Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, and that it, therefore, continues a valid and essential element of the gospel to this day—

"But when they (the Samaritans) believed Philip, PREACHING THE THINGS CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF GOD, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women" (Acts viii. 12).

"He went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months disputing and persuading THE THINGS CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF GOD" (Acts xix. 8).

"He expounded and testified THE KING. DOM OF GOD, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets" (Acts xxviii. 23).

"And received all that came in unto him, preaching THE KINGDOM OF GOD, and teaching those things that concern the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts xxviii. 30, 31).

"Among whom, I (Paul) have gone PREACHING THE KINGDOM OF GOD" (Acts xx. 25).

Now, Paul was exceedingly zealous that the same gospel which he himself preached, should be continued to be preached to the end of the world. "If an angel from heaven," said he, preach any other gospel than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (Gal. i. 8). Hence the gospel, of which he said it was the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth (Rom. i. 16), embraces the doctrine of the Kingdom of God, whatever that may be; for he himself continually preached it to both Jews and Gentiles.

""

We repeat that, in these circumstances, the question we have propounded is the most important to which attention can be invited.

What, then, is the Kingdom of God? Different answers will be given by different classes of people. Some conceive it to consist of the supremacy of God in the hearts of men-a sort of spiritual dominion existing co-extensively with secular life.

Others recognise it in the ecclesiastical organisations of the day, styling them, as a whole, Christendom, or the kingdom of Christ, while a third party behold it in universal nature, continuing from generation to generation.

66

"

The holders of the first idea find a sanction for their belief in the words of Christ: "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke xvii. 21). They overlook the fact that these words were addressed to the Pharisees, of whom Jesus said "Ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, but WITHIN ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity (Matt. xxiii. 28). This is not the state of mind that exists where the kingdom of God is supposed to dwell; and the fact that the statement in question was addressed to men of this character, shows that it had not the significance generally claimed for it. If the reader will examine any marginal Bible, he will find that among is given as the true rendering of the word translated "within;" which alters the significance of the verse. What Christ meant to intimate was his own presence among them "the Royalty of the heavens," in answer to the mocking enquiry of the Pharisees. Romans xiv. 17, is also quoted : "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; but this only affirms one truth, without destroying another. It is true the kingdom of God, when established, will be characterised by the qualities enumerated by Paul; but it does not therefore follow that the kingdom of God will not be a real and glorious manifestation of God's power on earth, through the personal intervention of His Son from heaven.

"

as

The second idea, that the Kingdom of God is to be found in the religious systems of the day, as "the visible church," is without even the semblance of Scriptural foundation. Its existence is traceable to the times succeeding the overthrow of Paganism, in the beginning of the fourth century, when Constantine delivered Christianity from its persecutors, and exalted it for the first time to the throne of prosperity and power. In the joy of the great change, the bishops said the King

dom of God had come in the establishment of the Church. But we must go to the New Testament -not to ecclesiastical historiansfor a Scriptural idea of the Church. The Church, we find, to be composed of the heirs of the Kingdom, in probation for coming exaltation. They are not the Kingdom itself. We refer, for proof, to the argument to follow in the present and succeeding lectures.

The third view, which regards the universe as "the kingdom of God," has more of truth in it than the first or second, and yet we shall find as much of error. Nature is certainly the dominion of the Deity in a very exalted sense; but it is not that which in the Scriptures is spoken of as "the kingdom of God." We are bold to make the assertion, because of abundant Scriptural testimony forthcoming.

"The

In endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of this phrase, Kingdom of God,' we cannot do better than look at it in its origin. It is a Bible phrase, and originates there. We find it used in contrast to "the kingdom of men," which occurs three times in Daniel iv.-see verses 17, 25, 32. The "kingdom of men ""

consists of the aggregate of human governments. It is an appropriate designation for them all. They are all the embodiment of one principle-namely, the rule of man by himself. Whether it be the despot or free Parliment, the same is exemplified-self-government. This has been the alpha and omega of all political faith, since man was first sent forth an exile from Eden to take care of himself. Its form has varied in different ages and countries, according to the views and inclinations of men, but men have agreed with marvellous unanimity as to the mainspring of the system. There has been no difference between the bitterest factions as to the source of the power they respectively claimed to exercise, namely, the will of man -whether royalist or republican, despotic or constitutional. The will

of man is the corner-stone of every political edifice that exists-the foundation of the vast system of nations that covers the face of the earth. No one ever questions the legitimacy of human authority as politically embodied. The fact is, the world knows of no other authority. If it believe in God, a false theology has excluded Him from any influence in the minds of men in things practical. They confine His jurisdiction to 66 spiritual things," to which an artificial significance has come to be attached; and even in these, they only yield Him a constrained and occasional deference. In reality, they acknowledge Him not. They own no higher authority than themselves. They assert the right to be their own masters, to dispose of this world's wealth as they think fit, and to make such laws as they please. This spirit is embodied in all the kingdoms of the world. It is the germ from which they are developed; so that in a particular and emphatic sense, human government, as multifariously manifested on the face of globe, is THE KINGDOM OF men. is the presumption of man politically incorporated, the organised enforcement of human dictate, irrespective of the authority of God. It is permitted of God as, in the circumstances, a necessary evil; and He overrules it with a view to His

It

in the hands of unauthorised, ambitious, erring kings and rulers. When the kingdom of God comes, it will displace and overthrow every power in the world, and visibly establish God's power on the earth, by the hand of Christ and his saints -all which will be made manifest to the reader in what is to follow.

For a general view of the subject, we cannot do better than turn to the second chapter of Daniel. Το advise the general reader to do this is to provoke a smile, perhaps, as if referring him to Daniel were like referring him to Jack the Giant Killer. Few people realise as they ought, that Daniel is a prophet whose authority rests on no less a sanction than that of the Lord Jesus himself: Christ said to his disciples, "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not (LET HIM THAT READETH UNDERSTAND)," &c. (Mark xiii. 14.) Not only does Christ specifically endorse the divinity of Daniel in this way, but he recognises it in the general appeals to the Scripture as the word of God, which, he said, cannot be broken" (Jno. x. 35). Daniel was a part of this Scripture, and, therefore, partakes of every confirmation given to the whole. In view of this, let us address ourselves, without the least reservation, to the reading of the chapter referred to.

It is a revelation of the most important kind. It is, in fact, the history of the world condensed in the form of a prophecy into a single chapter. To understand its bearing, we must transport ourselves into the past by upwards of a score of centuries, and take our stand in imagination, with Nebuchadnezzar, the representative of the first great Babylonian dynasty. Taking him as he appears in the chapter, we find the monarch in reverie. He is thinking of his past achievements; of his brilliant career, and the fame and the dominion which he has established. While reviewing the past, his mind turns to the future.

"Thy thoughts," says Daniel, came into thy mind, upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter." Should the great empire, which he had founded, be a haven for nations throughout all generations? or should some one rise after his death, and cause disruption and ruin? What would be the fate of the usurper? Should his power continue? or should it share a similar fate to his own? Should the world be a constant battle-field? Should history be an eternal record of strife and bloodshed? Should mankind for ever be cursed with the rivalries of potentates, and the devastations caused by military ambition? In this frame of mind, the monarch falls asleep; and while his slumbers are upon him, a dream is daguerreotyped upon the tablets of his brain by the Great Artificer, who hath the hearts of all men in His hands. The dream is for the purpose of answering the questions which had started in his mind, and of enlightening future generations as to the purpose of the Almighty. The king awakes; the dream imparted was instantly withdrawn. It is gone. The king only knows that he has had a dream of unusual impressiveness, but cannot recall its faintest outline. He is distressed. The dream has left behind it the impression that it was no ordinary dream, but by no effort can he bring it back. In his distress he has recourse to the magicians of his court, who, according to the traditions of their order, ought to be able to tell him the dream and the meaning. But the demand is beyond their resources. They confess their inability to supply information which was beyond everyone's reach. The king is irritated: regards their inability as evidence of imposture, and issues a decree for their death. This decree involved Daniel, who was a royal captive at Nebuchadnezzar's court, and who had been assigned an honorary position among the king's wise men, because of his capacity and culture. Daniel, hearing of it and the cause, asks respite,